The present time

[owl]

Mystery111,

Whatever the misunderstanding or disagreement which has arisen between us, I think you have summed up "the present time" very well in this from your post 11, with which I totally agree:

If there is only the present frame in which things exist, then what we really have is an eternal present. The stuff of past and future begin to be unveiled as products of a recording mind, which makes sense of the present by cataloguing the past and expecting a future to occur. Niether of which the past and future however physically exist.

 

Thanks.

[Spyman]

For the first time here I looked (in vain) for a place to report abuse.

FYI: It is the little yellow triangle marked "Report" in the lower left corner of each post.

[36grit]

Mystery111,

 

Quote

 

If there is only the present frame in which things exist, then what we really have is an eternal present. The stuff of past and future begin to be unveiled as products of a recording mind, which makes sense of the present by cataloguing the past and expecting a future to occur. Niether of which the past and future however physically exist.

 

 

 

 

Thanks.

 

 

I like this to. The problem with it is that one might incur an infinit amount possible outcomes, from one instant of time to the next. I could expect to be on the beach in one instant and the moon the next. I've tried LOL!!! it just doesn't work. The past and present are at the very least a momentum that narrow down logical position and possibility. Like pi dividing out, there is always a next and predictable number and an absolute truth of historical events.

Edited October 26, 2011 by 36grit

[Mystery111]

I like this to. The problem with it is that one might incur an infinit amount possible outcomes, from one instant of time to the next. I could expect to be on the beach in one instant and the moon the next. I've tried LOL!!! it just doesn't work. The past and present are at the very least a momentum that narrow down logical position and possibility. Like pi dividing out, there is always a next and predictable number and an absolute truth of historical events.

 

The thing that stops you from suddenly ending up on the moon is more or less due to your wave function which peaks wherever you are right now. My wave function extends far out past our local galaxy, but chance of finding me there is very very very slim.

[owl]

If I may participate without being accused of thread hijacking...

 

My agreement with Mystery111 is agreement with presentism.

Only the present, "now" exists. "Exists" IS the present tense of the verb 'to exist.'

The Sun will someday burn out, in the future, but that event has not happened yet, except in the mind of "block universe"* theorists.

 

Neanderthal man has long since become extinct... does not still exist, except in the mind, as above.

The cutting edge between future and past IS the present, and now IS always now, whether or not we think of the present as analogous to something "flowing." In presentism there are no local boundaries around "now" even though it 'takes time' for one location to "see what's happening now" in another location.

 

Wikipedia, Philosophy of Time:

Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real.

 

*Paul Davies on eternalism and the "block universe" of relativity:

... http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/time/chennotes.html

The Philosophy of Time...

Physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety - a timescape, analogous to a landscape - with all past and future events located there together

...

This clearly reifies time into an existing entity/medium which "contains" past, present and future.

36grit:

The problem with it (ed: presentism) is that one might incur an infinit amount possible outcomes, from one instant of time to the next.I could expect to be on the beach in one instant and the moon the next.

 

This seems to deny causation itself from one instant to the next for the "one" in question. Presumably some series of events, like joining NASA's astronaut program and flying to the moon, would be required to get you from the beach to the moon, even in the context of presentism, and it certainly could not happen in "an instant."

 

Mystery111:

The thing that stops you from suddenly ending up on the moon is more or less due to your wave function which peaks wherever you are right now.

"The thing that stops you..." is lack of a series of causal events, as above.

[Mystery111]

 

 

"The thing that stops you..." is lack of a series of causal events, as above.

 

Causation in itself is correct. Though the state vector of a system determines in the probabilistic sense of why you don't suddenly show up in other places. Remember this is strictly the weird yet wonderful nature of quantum mechanics; somehow subatomic objects can be in more than one place at one time, they can also show up great distances away from where they are due to potential vacuum tunnelling. These things aint so apparant on our level, in fact that is an understatement; it is more or less non-existent at our level. So the wave function would be dictating that this behaviour would be improbable for large macroscopic objects, which are themselves modelled causally, as you say.

[michel123456]

If I may participate without being accused of thread hijacking...

 

My agreement with Mystery111 is agreement with presentism.

Only the present, "now" exists. "Exists" IS the present tense of the verb 'to exist.'

(...)

 

But you must know that true present is not observable. What we believe is present is in fact the past.

 

_____________

I can't resist to have a look back at my beautiful pencil universe.

Edited October 26, 2011 by michel123456

[Mystery111]

But you must know that true present is not observable. What we believe is present is in fact the past.

 

_____________

I can't resist to have a look back at my beautiful pencil universe.

 

The present is a record of the past, with an intuitive mind present.

[owl]

The present is a record of the past, with an intuitive mind present.

 

The past is a record of everything that *has happened*. The present is now happening.

[Mystery111]

The past is a record of everything that *has happened*. The present is now happening.

 

It's the only time ever happening. And the past is only a record because our psychology dictates this so. There is no real past, only memories of past events.

[36grit]

The Present Time: A band of frequency within an infinit sprectrum.

 

 

 

Perhaps we should define the spectrum. It would be my assumption that every single atom would have a field of relativity at the low end of the scale. The high end should cover the entire expanse of the universe.

The present is would be the now state energy within any respective time dialation.

The future is field of statistical probability. Beyond this field is infinit possibility and at this point another universe is surely expanding.

The past massless photons that shape the infinite feild of time dialations.

[michel123456]

It's the only time ever happening. And the past is only a record because our psychology dictates this so. There is no real past, only memories of past events.

 

To clarify, what is your understanding of "the present is the only time ever happening".

Where is "what is happening" in the following diagram? Is it in the black zone (in the present) or the blue (in the past)?

 

[morgsboi]

Easist way to explain is a dead stop between "a" and "b". A being past and b being future.

[Mystery111]

To clarify, what is your understanding of "the present is the only time ever happening".

Where is "what is happening" in the following diagram? Is it in the black zone (in the present) or the blue (in the past)?

 

 

Real physical events only happen within the sphere of the present moment: that would be in your abstraction, the black horizontal line.

[md65536]

Real physical events only happen within the sphere of the present moment: that would be in your abstraction, the black horizontal line.

That line in 2D is a hyperplane in 4D, not a sphere.

 

The 4D light cone, if we view it in 3 spatial dimensions, is a sphere whose radius changes at the speed of light. The past cone looks like a sphere that shrinks to a point at "you are here", and the future cone looks like a sphere that grows with time. The intersection of a hyperplane "instant" with the light cone is a sphere. The intersection of the black "present" hyperplane and your light cone is a degenerate sphere with radius 0... it is a point. This point is the intersection of the two "nows" that michel123456 was asking clarification on: The black unobservable, uninteractable distant simultaneous now, and the blue causal, perceived now. That it's a point might be interpreted as that in the misnomer "sphere of the present moment" we can only observe or affect things at a distance of 0; interactions across any greater distance would require more than just an instant.

 

The events you speak of are not causally related to you. Since the correct geometry can give a lot of meaning to this, I'll restate your quote as how I think it's supposed to be:

"Real physical events only happen on the hyperplane of the present moment: that would be in your abstraction, the black horizontal line."

 

 

 

However, with lack of simultaneity you could also say that the present moment can be simultaneous with anything outside of your light cone (past and future). The "fuzziness" of the black line can extend right to (the sharp outer edge of) the blue line. I think. So you might also say "Real physical events only happen (now) outside of the cone of what is immediately observable." ??? Or something... -- But for simplicity this can be ignored and we can speak of your "now" as the straight black line without fuzziness (a hyperplane). We can ignore the fuzziness and variability of "now" by saying it applies only to other different frames of reference.

Edited October 27, 2011 by md65536

[owl]

But you must know that true present is not observable. What we believe is present is in fact the past.

As I said:

In presentism there are no local boundaries around "now" even though it 'takes time' for one location to "see what's happening now" in another location.

As a psychologist having studied the physiology of perception, I well know that, even with an event happening right in front of our faces, "it takes time" for a visual image of 'what IS happening' to reach the visual cortex and be "experienced" as "now happening."

In that sense, I agree. Our experience of "now" always has a signal delay factor between the "now happening" event and our "now experiencing" that event.

 

Same principle holds for longer distances between event and perception of event, but that does not deny that the universal present is now happening everywhere.

My favorite example is that a flare on the Sun happening now will take 8+ minutes to be seen on Earth, but that does not deny that "the present" IS now, simultaneously happening both here and there. This, of course, contradicts relativity's claim that simultaneity is relative to the velocity, etc. of all different frames of reference... (that all "reality" depends on the frames of reference from which events are observed.)

[md65536]

As a psychologist

What certification, degree, or license do you have? I ask this as it would back up your claim of expertise.

 

 

[owl]

What certification, degree, or license do you have? I ask this as it would back up your claim of expertise.

None of your business. I value my privacy and a good bit of anonymity for good reasons of my own. That's why I didn't share any biographical info when I joined this forum. I always tell the truth (as I know it, of course), and I don't care a whit whether or not you believe me.

[michel123456]

Real physical events only happen within the sphere of the present moment: that would be in your abstraction, the black horizontal line.

 

But the black line has a very peculiar property:

since no interaction can happen in zero time, no interaction can happen between the elements of the black line. The black line is a "dead body", meaning that there can be no direct bindings beween its elements.

[IM Egdall]

As I said:

 

As a psychologist having studied the physiology of perception, I well know that, even with an event happening right in front of our faces, "it takes time" for a visual image of 'what IS happening' to reach the visual cortex and be "experienced" as "now happening."

In that sense, I agree. Our experience of "now" always has a signal delay factor between the "now happening" event and our "now experiencing" that event.

 

Same principle holds for longer distances between event and perception of event, but that does not deny that the universal present is now happening everywhere.

My favorite example is that a flare on the Sun happening now will take 8+ minutes to be seen on Earth, but that does not deny that "the present" IS now, simultaneously happening both here and there. This, of course, contradicts relativity's claim that simultaneity is relative to the velocity, etc. of all different frames of reference... (that all "reality" depends on the frames of reference from which events are observed.)

 

Oy! The fact that it takes 8+ minutes for light from the Sun to reach the Earth does NOT contradict the relativity of simultaneity. Why do you claim it does?

[md65536]

But the black line has a very peculiar property:

since no interaction can happen in zero time, no interaction can happen between the elements of the black line. The black line is a "dead body", meaning that there can be no direct bindings beween its elements.

But its elements are simply events. The "no direct binding" simply means there's no (instantaneous) information transfer between events at different places on the black line, which means there can be no causal relations between such events. The "direct binding" is essentially a causal connection. Having a mutual "direct binding" between two events would mean that it's possible to have each event cause the other event, which of course is paradoxical.

 

It's already been established that the light cone (blue lines) represents the immediately perceived "now", which is also the immediate causative now (providing your "direct binding" between an observer and a distant object).

 

In SR I think the interpretation would be:

- Nothing can interact instantly (including the 'now' instant) over non-zero distance.

- Any influence an object has on an observer (a "binding"?) involves information from a past state of the object.

 

In your interpretation it might be:

- There is no immediate causal connection between distant objects. Objects are interactively connected only through past events.

 

 

 

 

 

"Binding" is a misleading word because you're really only speaking of information transfer and interaction. Two particles can be connected in other ways, such as through quantum entanglement, and be "bound" in that way to each other at 2 different points on your black line. But there is no possible way to transfer information between the particles at those points. They are connected, but not in the essential way that we're talking about here; they're not causally connected.

[owl]

Oy! The fact that it takes 8+ minutes for light from the Sun to reach the Earth does NOT contradict the relativity of simultaneity. Why do you claim it does?

I am familiar with the aspect of relativity called the relativity of simultaneity.

From Wikipedia:

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneity–whether two events occur at the same time–is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

 

As an advocate of presentism, I dispute the above. Now IS now, both here and on the Sun, even though they are separated in space. All reality does NOT depend on " the observers framer of reference,"... so presentism also disputes the assertion (Wiki, continued):

 

“Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. “

 

They are observed in different order even though they occursimultaneously.

 

My comments were in reply to michel123456's 10/26 post:

 

But you must know that true present is not observable. What we believe is present is in fact the past.

I said:

In presentism there are no local boundaries around "now" even though it 'takes time' for one location to "see what's happening now" in another location.

 

My further comments were responding in agreement with michel that there is always a delay between events happening now and our present perception/experience of those events, whether right in front of our faces or at greater distances.

Edited October 29, 2011 by owl

[IM Egdall]

They are observed in different order even though they occursimultaneously.

 

 

 

In whose reference frame do they occur simultaneously? And why is this particular reference frame "special"?

[michel123456]

But its elements are simply events. The "no direct binding" simply means there's no (instantaneous) information transfer between events at different places on the black line, which means there can be no causal relations between such events. The "direct binding" is essentially a causal connection. Having a mutual "direct binding" between two events would mean that it's possible to have each event cause the other event, which of course is paradoxical.

 

It's already been established that the light cone (blue lines) represents the immediately perceived "now", which is also the immediate causative now (providing your "direct binding" between an observer and a distant object).

 

In SR I think the interpretation would be:

- Nothing can interact instantly (including the 'now' instant) over non-zero distance.

- Any influence an object has on an observer (a "binding"?) involves information from a past state of the object.

 

In your interpretation it might be:

- There is no immediate causal connection between distant objects. Objects are interactively connected only through past events.

 

 

 

 

 

"Binding" is a misleading word because you're really only speaking of information transfer and interaction. Two particles can be connected in other ways, such as through quantum entanglement, and be "bound" in that way to each other at 2 different points on your black line. But there is no possible way to transfer information between the particles at those points. They are connected, but not in the essential way that we're talking about here; they're not causally connected.

 

Exactly. I agree 100%

[Mystery111]

That line in 2D is a hyperplane in 4D, not a sphere.

 

 

 

 

Do you wish to continue being pedantic, or are you interested in a serious discussion?